BIBLICAL NON-RESISITANCE
FROM THE HISTORIC ANABAPTIST PERSPECTIVE
Dr. Gary Staats, Th.D; Ph.D.
Edited by Adam Coffman, Chrusolitha Gujjarlamudi and Marty Daly
Copyright © 2008
Dr. Gary Staats
All Rights Reserved
Converted to Logos PB by Rosie Perera, posted with permission of the author
[[@Page:1]]
Rev. Dr. C. Gary Staats Th.D.; Ph.D.
Education:
Received a B.A. in Bible at South Eastern Bible College, 1963
Th.M. in New Testament Greek from Dallas Theological Seminary, 1967
Th.D. in Biblical Studies from Dallas Theological Seminary, 1971
M.A. in Hebrew and Ancient Near Eastern Languages at Dropsie College of Hebrew and
Cognate Learning in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 1983
Ph.D. in Hebrew and Near Eastern Languages at New York University, 1989
Dr. Staats has been a professor and pastor for many years, serving at various schools and in
numerous pastorates. He is an American Baptist pastor.
[[@Page:2]]
Outline
Biblical Non-resistance in the Teaching and Example of Christ and the Early Church
I. The Anabaptist View of Non-Resistance from the New Testament
A. The Teaching and Example of Christ
1. His Teaching
2. His Example
B. The Teaching and Example of the Early Church
1. The Teaching of the Apostles
2. The Example of the Early Church
II. The Teaching of the Early Post-Apostolic Church and Anabaptist Belief
III. The Objections to Non-Resistance and Replies by the Anabaptist Position
A. Scriptural Objections
B. Practical Objections
V. The Application of Non-Resistance to Life by the Anabaptist Position
[[@Page:3]]
Introduction
The historic anabaptist position came from the period of the reformation and was taught
by such men as Men no Simmons, and Conrad Grebel and others. From them came a stream of
those in not only Mennonite but in other traditions that follow the position of non-resistance.
When historic anabaptists speak of non-resistance they are not speaking of a strictly
humanistic form of pacifism, or some other form of non-violence outside of the genuine
Christian community of believers. They are rather referring to a teaching which is believed to be
taught initially by Christ and reiterated by the Apostles, and which is only applicable to believers
who are personally seeking to be disciples of Jesus Christ. They do not believe this ethic is
spoken to non-believers according to the New Testament, but is rather an application of our
Lord's mandate for those who know and seek to follow Him by walking as He did.
The Anabaptist View of Non-Resistance from the New Testament
The Teaching and Example of Christ
The Teaching of Christ
When approaching the question of non-resistance to evil, from the anabaptist perspective,
the ultimate authority for the view comes from the testimony and direct teaching of Christ and
the New Testament. Specifically, the two main passages of consideration are in the Gospel of
Matthew [[chapters 5-7 >> Bible:Matt 5]], and the Gospel of Luke [[chapter 6 >> Bible:Luke
6]]. Because Matthew is the longer, the analysis will be made there.
In the context of Matthew, Christ has been preaching the kingdom of heaven as having
arrived, and many multitudes were following Him from all over Judea (Matt. 4). In their minds is
no doubt the question, "What kind of righteousness is required to enter into this kingdom?" This
question may have been in their minds due to the Lord's statement in Matthew 5:20,
[[@Page:4]]"except your righteousness exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees
you shall in no way enter the kingdom of heaven."
Seeing the crowds, Jesus went into a mountain and after sitting down began to speak to
his own disciples ([[5:1-2 >> Bible:Matt 5:1-2]]) in what has been called the beatitudes ([[5:3-12
>> Bible:Matt 5:3-12]]). In them He seems to be exhorting them concerning those people who
would now be blessed in view of His presence and kingdom of which He has been speaking
([[4:23 >> Bible:Matt 4:23]]). Alluding back to the Old Testament He states the various
characteristics of the people who were about to be blessed in His own person and coming
kingdom—it would be the poor (not the proud) in spirit, the mourners, the meek, etc., and it
seems by these words that our Lord is encouraging these disciples of His concerning the
necessary characteristics of those who would experience forthcoming blessings. He encourages
these to be such in their lives as they look forward to God's blessing that would come to them
because of their devotions to the Lord in life and suffering.
This is followed by our Lord's encouraging His own to be like savory salt rather than the
worthless unsavory kind, and to be a light that shines as a city on a hill, and as a lamp upon a
lampstand in a house ([[5:13-16 >> Bible:Matt 5:13-16]]). In such a manner they are to be His
witnesses and let their light shine.
It seems in [[5:1-16 >> Bible:Matt 5:1-16]] the Lord has been speaking solely to His
twelve disciples, but by now the crowds have come up the mountain to Him. And so in [[5:17 >>
Bible:Matt 5:17]] he says in their presence as well, “Think not that I have come to destroy the
law,” and then concludes with the words, “For I say to you that except your righteousness exceed
that of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall in no way enter the kingdom of heaven.”
The question in the mind of these Jewish people seems to have been as previously stated,
"What kind of righteousness is required in order to enter into your kingdom?" He then moves to
[[@Page:5]]demonstrate the kind of righteousness required for citizens of His kingdom by
beginning with their understanding of Pharisaic interpretation of God's law and applying to it the
real intended meaning of the commands of God, as it now relates to Christ's disciples. In
[[chapter 5 >> Bible:Matt 5]], He deals with attitudes and ethical responsibilities toward others
(anger, adultery, divorce, oaths, retaliation, and love of enemies) whereas in [[6-7 >> Bible:Matt
6-7]] He deals for the most part with practices which relate to God which need correcting
(almsgiving, prayer, fasting, money, worry, etc.). He concludes the sermon by encouraging His
hearers to build their foundation upon a rock base rather than upon sand so that it can withstand
the onslaught of floods ([[7:24-27 >> Bible:Matt 7:24-27]]). This parable seems to be saying that
these hearers must build their lives upon the rock foundation of Christ and His righteousness
rather than the sand base of Pharisaic righteousness to stand against the forthcoming judgment of
God on their lives.
With this review in mind, the main concern of non-resistance is in verses [[38-48 of
Matthew 5 >> Bible:Matt 5:38-48]], in the section dealing with the responsibility to others. Jesus
says, "You have heard that it was written, 'an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth,’ but I am
saying to you, stop resisting the evil one, but whosoever shall smite you on your right cheek, turn
to him the other also, and to the one who wants to take you to court and to take away your outer
cloak, give him also (your) inner (one), and whosoever compels you to go one mile, depart with
him two; and to the one who asks, give, and to the one who wants to borrow from you, stop
turning away" (Matthew 5:38-42).
These words drive home the message of Christ to His hearers. Taking this "eye for an
eye, and a tooth for a tooth," concept from the Mosaic law (Exodus 21:24; Leviticus 24:20;
Deuteronomy 19:21) Pharisaic practice had evidently encouraged a response in kind to injury or
[[@Page:6]]evil done to one. Now under the progressive revelation of the Son of Man as God's
final spoken Word (Hebrews 1:1-3), Jesus states the type of relationship God now expects of His
disciples.
First, one is to stop resisting the evil man, and to turn one's cheek to the one who smites.
Smiting one on the cheek with the hand was a gross insult. Jesus is thus teaching: do not return
insult for insult, but rather be non-resistant. There seems to be nothing in the context that would
deny a literal understanding of this, and the life of the Lord Himself seems to clearly back up and
illuminate the meaning of this exhortation as He Himself literally fulfilled it in His attitude and
approach to His enemies (1 Peter 2; Matt. 26:52; Luke 9:51-55; healing Malcus' ear, forgiving
those who were crucifying Him, etc.). Thus, Jesus in His teaching and example is clearly
teaching a non-resistant, non-retaliation to one who is an enemy and even doing harm to his
hearers.
The same non-retaliatory spirit holds true in lawsuits (Matt 5:40). One does not seek to
save his own life, but willingly follows an attitude and action of non-resistance. The same was to
be true of what possibly was civil compulsion in the first century. The compulsion of Simon to
carry the cross of Jesus might illustrate such a point.
Finally, if one in need asks for something, the follower of Christ is to give, or if one
desires to borrow, the follower of our Lord's words will not turn his hand away from the one
requesting ([[vs. 42 >> Bible:Matt 5:42]]). He will do it expecting nothing in return. At this point
again, Christ is the exegesis of the sermon. In His life and teaching elsewhere we see the
meaning of the sermon illustrated. One need not believe that our Lord is teaching that one must
render everything to another regardless of what is asked, but that, which can be given, which is
best for the party requesting it.
[[@Page:7]]For example, if he were asking for a gun to commit suicide, one would not
give it to him, since to do so would be to do that which is not in the best interest of the one
making the request. Jesus said to do all things to another that we would do to ourselves (Matt.
22:39). Therefore, it may not always be in the best interest of the person to give him what is
asked for, and to instead, in such an instance, follow the teaching of Christ elsewhere (that of
loving our neighbor as ourselves). This is the proper approach and gives a balanced
understanding of this passage.
The Lord then continues:
“You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.'
But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that
you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the
evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you
love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax
collectors doing that? And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing
more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your
heavenly Father is perfect” (Matt. 5:43-48).
In these verses our Lord continues His thrust started in [[verses 39-42 >> Bible:Matt
5:39-42]]. You are not only to be non-resistant and non-retaliatory toward your enemies, but you
are to positively love them and pray for them. In so doing, He says, you become in a
demonstrable way sons of your Father in that He loves both the good and the bad as is
demonstrated in His work of sending the sun and the rain equally on both.
Therefore, if your Father is of such nature, Christ teaches, you then share in His attitude
and action by demonstrating the same equality of love for all rather than only for friends, for
even heathens greet their friends. Thus, He exhorts them to be perfect (in this equal display of
love to all—good and bad) as their heavenly Father is perfect.
In this passage, by way of a side comment, one need not believe our Lord is teaching a
works salvation or an entering into son-ship via loving enemies, but He is rather saying that
[[@Page:8]]if you really are sons of God as you claim you are, then such son-ship can only be
demonstrated in action that parallels the nature and action of the one of whom you claim sonship. The offspring must look like the parent.
Anabaptists believe such a statement by our Lord is absolute. He lays down no
conditions, nor does He specify one sort of enemy to the exclusion of another (e.g., an enemy
next door vs. an enemy across the world). This statement is, therefore, in the anabaptist view,
applied to every enemy whether he be in some other country in the time of a war, or whether he
be someone in our immediate surroundings. In essence one is to love an enemy as one's
neighbor, and Paul, borrowing from this teaching of our Lord in Romans 12:17 and [[13:10 >>
Bible:Rom 13:10]], says that love works no injury (or evil) to one's neighbor. For a Christian
then to injure, maim, or destroy anyone whether it be in war or otherwise is, according to the
anabaptist belief, to act contrary to the teaching of our Lord and the New Testament.
At this point some might object that the Sermon on the Mount was never intended to be
applied by Christians today but is rather the constitutional principles that will be operative in a
future millennial kingdom. Hence, it is argued by some that Jesus was simply telling His hearers
about the kind of principles that would govern in His future earthly reign.
Such a view of the Sermon on the Mount, however, from a pre-millennial position, seems
precarious for several reasons: First, all the things discussed in the sermon are strange indeed to a
period when the lamb and the lion will lie down together (Isaiah 11) and when universal peace is
going to reign in the millennial period as Old Testament scripture anticipates for those who
follow this view. Smiting one in the face, being compelled by government, and Christians being
persecuted are not going to be occurring in the future kingdom period according to previous Old
Testament revelation about this period (Micah 4; [[@Page:9]]Isaiah 2:1-4; Isaiah 11, etc.).
Second, the Sermon on the Mount is a unit from chapters five through seven, and no one would
deny interpreting Matthew 5:21-31, 6:5-8, 6:19-21, etc. as being applicable to the believer today.
Third, the Lord immediately challenges His hearers to obey the sermon right then and not in
some future millennial age (as seen in Luke's version of the sermon in Luke 6:46-47ff which
contains the same exhortation of loving one's enemies, e.g. Luke 6:27-36). Fourth, the Lord
encourages His apostles at His ascension to teach people to observe all things which He had
commanded them (Matt. 28:19-20). Lastly, the apostles then through the guidance of the Holy
Spirit reiterate in their teaching and lives the very same teaching of love and absolute nonresistance which was taught by the Lord (Romans 12:17-21; 13:8-10; 1 Thessalonians 5:15;
1 Peter 2:8-25: 3:8-9ff, etc.) showing a present day application of our Lord's teaching.
While the sermon is therefore not the constitution of the millennial kingdom period, its
historical setting does concern the ministry of Jesus in the process of speaking about his kingdom
and sets forth the righteousness prerequisite for those desirous of entering this kingdom. Such a
righteousness as seen in the sermon could only be ultimately realized in Christ in making Him
their foundation and permitting His righteousness lo be realized in them.
If this sermon be the expression then of God's righteousness requisite for those desiring
entrance into His kingdom how much is the sermon applicable to those of us today who are
members of Christ's body and kingdom via the new birth. Since God's righteousness under the
progressive revelation of His Son given at this point (Sermon on the Mount) is unaltered and
reiterated in the remainder of the New Testament (Romans 12:17-21; 13:8-10; 1 Thessalonians
5:15; 1 Peter 2, etc.) that which was applicable to the hearers [[@Page:10]]of Jesus is just as
assuredly applicable to believers today in the church phase of God's theocratic rule since God's
standard of righteousness in the ethic of love and non-resistance has not changed and is
unalterable and constantly demonstrated by the way it is taught to the church throughout the New
Testament.
Therefore, it is the anabaptist conviction that what is spoken of in the Sermon on the
Mount is directly applicable to the believer in the church today. If one interprets the words of the
Lord simply as they stand according to grammatical, historical, literal hermeneutics apart from
traditional, or emotional presuppositional factors, anabaptists believe that one could not take
human life in any situation, nor could he injure anyone, but would spend his life seeking to live
non-resistantly. loving those who hated him, and praying for those who were persecuting and
using him. And such non-resistance and love is not only applicable as far as war or physical
injury toward another is concerned but must be faithfully applied at every level of human
relationship and association with others.
The Example of Christ
Not only does Christ teach non-resistance in the New Testament but He also sets the
example of such Himself. This is seen throughout the New Testament. For example, after Peter's
exploit with the sword (Matt. 26:52), Christ responds to the injury committed by healing the ear
of an enemy who was coming to take Him to His death (Luke 22:51). Again, when the disciples
wanted to command fire to come down from heaven and destroy the Samaritans who were
rejecting Jesus, they are reproved by Christ for their attitude (Luke 9:51-55).
[[@Page:11]]Another beautiful illustration of this example of love and non-resistance
towards an enemy is the case of Judas at the Last Supper. Here was one who was preparing to
betray Jesus, and Jesus, knowing this (John 13:18-26), gives the sop to Judas depicting His
friendship and love toward him (John 13:26-27). To give the sop to someone was to show the
highest degree of friendship and love toward that one.
Finally, perhaps the supreme example of non-resistance of Christ is seen on the cross
when He, instead of asking God to judge and destroy His enemies, asks Him to forgive them.
Peter picks up this example of Christ's non-resistance and applies it to servants who were
undergoing physical as well as perhaps emotional persecution from their masters. Instead of
retaliating, they are exhorted to follow the example of Jesus. Peter thus writes: "Slaves, submit
yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but
also to those who are harsh. For it is commendable if a man bears up under the pain of unjust
suffering because he is conscious of God. But how is it to your credit if you receive a beating for
doing wrong and endure it? But if you suffer for doing good and you endure it, this is
commendable before God. To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you
an example, that you should follow in his steps. He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in
his mouth. When they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made
no threats. Instead, he entrusted himself to Him who judges justly" (1 Peter 2:18-23).
In this passage Peter is clearly using Christ and the supreme example of non-resistance to
evil as an encouragement to these afflicted servants to do the same. These, and we could say all
believers persecuted by anyone, are to suffer doing good and viewing Jesus as the example. The
word "example" ([[2:21 >> Bible:1 Pt 2:21]]) views a wax tablet in which the letters of the
[[@Page:12]]Greek alphabet were already imprinted. A young child learning the alphabet for the
first time would draw these after the shape of the letters inscribed in the tablet and thereby learn
to write and form the letters of the alphabet. So, Jesus is our alphabet inscribed as it were as far
as the example of a love of enemies and non-resistance is concerned. He has already drawn the
alphabet or the non-resistant type of life inscribed on the pages of human history, and we are
simply to follow in the pattern already laid down.
That pattern is declared by seeing the response of Jesus on the cross. While it was His
destiny to die, one might have expected Jesus to at least condemn His enemies and pronounce
God's wrath on them for doing this to Him. But instead, when He was reviled, He did not return
the same; when He was suffering at the hands of enemies. He did not threaten them, but rejecting
all of these things, He delivered Himself over to God and asked the Father's forgiveness of His
afflicters. Such is to be our example, for if we say that we know Him and follow Him, we ought
to walk as He Himself walked. (1 John 2:6)
Not only do we therefore find that Christ taught non-resistance but He lived it. While on
the cross, Christ was on the defense. It would have been self-defense had He defended Himself
even though in words: but instead He only showed love displayed by His non-resistance and
forgiveness of those directly carrying out the offense against Him. So, in following Christ, a
Christian is not just taught to avoid taking the offensive, but even in what could be called
legitimate self-defense, he must respond by overcoming evil with good and love toward his
offenders if he is to be like his Savior.
[[@Page:13]]The Teaching and Example of the Early Church
Non-resistance for the Christian is not only taught by our Lord, but was reiterated
through the New Testament in the teaching of the apostles. They simply confirmed what the
Lord had taught and passed on His exhortation to their hearers. This is seen in both their teaching
and example.
The Teaching of the Apostles
In their teaching the exhortation to non-resistance is seen in Paul, Peter, and James'
writing. Perhaps the largest section devoted to it in the teaching of the Apostles is Paul's writing
in Romans 12:17-13:10. Here Paul dramatically and vividly exhorts his hearers to always
overcome evil with good.
The movement of this passage shows its interrelatedness from Romans 12:17 and [[13:10
>> Bible:Rom 13:10]]. Paul first exhorts his readers to never render evil for evil (Romans
12:17). This is absolute and there are not any circumstances given which would nullify this
absolute ([[12:17 >> Bible:Rom 12:17]]). He then brings in an Old Testament passage applying
the same teaching in the personal realm (Romans 12:18-20), and then moves back to the
universal or absolute law related in [[12:17 >> Bible:Rom 12:17]] of always overcoming evil
with good ([[12:21 >> Bible:Rom 12:21]]).
With such love and non-resistance in view, the immediate question no doubt present in
the mind of his hearers is: Is such a life of non-resistance and subjection necessary toward a
Neronian government? Shouldn't the Christians join a rebellion and overcome such a menace?
Again Paul continues his admonition of non-resistance and subjection to enemies toward
government as well. To rebel against unsaved government (Christians were not in Nero's
government) is to deny that God is using them as His instrument to hold down evil in
[[@Page:14]]a world system. Therefore, be in subjection to them in order to avoid Nero's wrath
on you as well as for conscience’ sake since he is a minister ordained of God for the role of
holding down evil in a world system. Paul never encourages the Christian to help Nero bear the
sword in holding down evil, for this would be a contradiction of the terms laid down for the
believers in Romans 12:17 and [[21 >> Bible:Rom 12:21]], but is rather exhorting Christians to
be consistent with their non-resistance toward Nero as well and hence show this subjection by
paying proper taxes and honor (Romans 13:7). Romans 13:1-7 then falls into the whole
discussion of overcoming evil with good or love and not with evil. Paul is not therefore saying
that in private life one overcomes evil with good, while in civil life he helps government bear the
sword and overcomes evil with further injury (evil), for this would contradict the total flow of
[[12:17 to 13:10 >> Bible:Rom 12:17-13:10]] and the absolute mandate in the believer's
consistent responsibility of always overcoming evil with good (Romans 12:17; Romans 13:8ff).
He is rather saying that even in relationship to government a Christian is to apply the principle of
subjection and doing good and inasmuch as is lawful for him (as a Christian following God's
higher ethical teaching), obey the authorities that exist in areas whereby they will not contradict
God's call for his life (namely the rendering of fear, taxes, and honor). Paul though, never
exhorts his readers here to bear Nero's sword with him but simply to reverence Nero in his use of
the sword to hold down evil.
This all brings Paul right back to where he started in Romans 12:17-21 where he
reiterates, having now included government in this sphere of non-resistance. "Owe no one
anything, except to love one another" ([[13:8 >> Bible:Rom 13:8]]). He goes on to demonstrate
that love is the fulfillment of the law and that it is all headed up in the saying. "You shall love
your neighbor as yourself" (Leviticus 19:18; Romans 13:9). Thus, the statement is contextually
broadened [[@Page:15]]to a universal application as our Lord had done (Matt. 5:43-48). He
concludes "love works no injury (evil) to its neighbor" (13:10). In the context the neighbor
represents or equals all people since in [[13:8 >> Bible:Rom 13:8]] one is to owe no one
anything except love. No one includes all people who are to be loved, and hence such love
toward one's neighbor (all people) never works evil or injury to him (the word here in Greek for
evil can also be rendered injury).
So that according to the anabaptist interpretation [[13:8-10 >> Bible:Rom 13:8-10]] is
simply a conclusion of what was stated in Romans 12:17-21 and what goes in between ([[13:1-7
>> Bible:Rom 13:1-7]]) is not a separate section dealing with Christian responsibility of nonresistance in private versus his civil responsibility of bearing a sword (the normal evangelical
interpretation of this passage), but shows his responsibility under God of always overcoming
injury with love (Romans 12:17-25; 13:8-10). Thus to no one (Nero, personal or non-personal
enemies, or any person whoever he be, and wherever he be, whether in war, or in peacetime, in
any other country or from one's own country) owe anything except to love them, and love works
no injury to his neighbor. Anabaptists believe that the essence of Paul's thought from Romans
12:17-13:10 simply repeats what the Master had taught.
Another passage in which Paul teaches the doctrine of non-resistance is found in
l Thessalonians 5:15 where he says, "See that no one render evil in the place of evil to anyone,
but at all times constantly pursue the good unto one another and unto all." This exhortation of
Paul is found in the concluding section of 1 Thessalonians and is simply a reiteration of what we
have just looked at in Romans 12.
Taking the concept of non-retaliation from Proverbs 20:22 which was limited in its
application in the Old Testament (e.g., Matthew 5:43), Paul, following the application of nonresistance taught by Christ, applies these words to his hearers in a wider absolute sense. Paul
[[@Page:16]]did not say only on certain occasions that a believer should not return evil for evil
(Romans 12:17). He writes that believers should at all times constantly pursue this nonretaliation unto one another and unto all. If all means all, and at all times means at all times, then
there should be no time or no one toward whom we would not so live. It is the anabaptist
conviction that there is no passage in the New Testament which would nullify this or necessitate
understanding the all in a relative sense, so that the all here is just as assuredly comprehensive to
include all as the whosoever of John 3:16.
Other scriptural passages in the New Testament teach an attitude of non-resistance
toward all. Paul admonishes Titus to show gentleness to all men (Titus 3:3) and he admonishes
Timothy to teach the Word with all longsuffering (2 Timothy 4:2). James speaks of believers to
whom he had no doubt taught non-resistance (having received it from the Lord) as ones who did
not resist their persecutors even though it meant their death. He says, "You killed the just, and he
does not resist you" (James 5:6). Peter as seen previously in the paper exhorts believers to follow
in the non-resistant example of Christ (1 Peter 2:18-25) and further reiterates the teaching of
Christ in exhorting his readers not to render evil for evil (1 Peter 3:9).
In view of all this, the anabaptist perspective believes that one who understands these
passages in their literal sense could not destroy, take the life of another, or in any way hurt
another person. In Colossians 3:17 Paul says, "And whatsoever you do in word or in work do all
in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through Him." Understanding all
of these passages just discussed in an absolute manner, to say that one could have a part in the
hurling or destruction of others under any circumstances and to suggest that one could do all of
this to the glory of God giving thanks to God in the process, [[@Page:17]]to the anabaptist
position does not seem possible. This is especially true since Jesus taught love to all.
The Example of the Early Church
Not only did the Apostles teach non-resistance following the teaching of our Lord, but
the early church lived it. John could say, "Whoever claims to live in Him must walk as Jesus did"
(l John 2:6). To walk as He walked means that when one is being reviled he will not revile in
return; when he is being threatened he will not strike back (1 Peter 2:23). And the Apostles and
their converts certainly followed this example.
As already alluded to when Peter exhorted his readers in 1 Peter 2:18-25 and [[3:8-18 >>
Bible:1 Pet 2:18-25]], they are encouraged to follow Christ's example of non-resistance. Again,
some of James' flock (understanding the word just as probably a reference to saved people) did
not retaliate toward even those who were doing harm to them. No doubt these had probably
picked up his teaching and example from James and literally and consistently applied it in their
situation.
Perhaps the classic example of a non-resistant attitude is seen in the example of Stephen
as he was being stoned. Luke records his immortal words when, following the example of the
Master, he replies, "Lord, do not hold this sin against them" (Acts 7:60). While one could not
under the circumstances expect a physical resistance on the part of Stephen, one might have
suspected a resistant attitude toward them. One might say that Stephen could have been justified
in saying something like this: "Father do not remove this sin from them," or, "judge them
someday for this," but in this trying circumstance Stephen was expressing his non-resistant
altitude that paralleled that of the Master. There was not [[@Page:18]]even a verbal retaliation
here, but simply a gentle attitude of love and forgiveness toward his enemies.
It is this action that literalizes the leaching and example of our Lord, and with such an
attitude and practice, anabaptists believe one could not work any injury or hurt to another. And it
is such love and non-resistance that we as Christians are to manifest in a world system that
knows not the nature of such action because it knows not Him who is of such a character.
The Teaching of the Early Post-Apostolic Church and Anabaptist Belief
According to the anabaptist belief not only is non-resistance taught and lived first by our
Lord, and then by the Apostles and the Apostolic church, but the same non-resistance is further
continued in the early post-apostolic church. In the relation of Christians to warfare and
participation in it by Christians, the early leaders in the church either directly taught that a
consistent Christian must reject all bloodshed and war, or taught such a non-resistance that
participation in warfare would have been an impossibility.
It seems clear that in the early years up to 170 A.D. there was total rejection of any
participation in the Roman army. However, gradually after that time, up to Constantine, there
was a rejection of non-resistance on the part of some, even though the main church leaders very
definitely supported it. Then with Constantine the church merged with the state and for the most,
the church, except for small groups within it, lost its Biblical non-resistance. This initial loss of a
Biblical ethic of non-resistance by the institutionalized church eventually resulted in the growth
of ideas such as justification of Christian participation in war via Augustine's just war ethic, and
in actions that gave way to a total abandonment to militarism [[@Page:19]]as seen in the
inhumane crusades. The average Christian's belief today is mainly heir to Augustine's just war
ethic, and the teaching of the mainline reformers (Martin Luther and John Calvin) of
participation in warfare due to the basic justification of the church and state synthesis. Augustine
justifies this practice of a Christian's participation in warfare due to what anabaptists believe to
be a misinterpretation of Romans 13. The merger of church and state under Constantine was
never fully reversed by the Reformation (which was mainly a doctrinal reformation rather than
ethical), back to the position of the New Testament and early church. Most believers therefore
today are basically heir to Constantine's own ideals in the belief and function regarding the
position of non-resistance.
In the early post-apostolic church, however, up to 170 A.D., Christians were not found in
the Roman army. Evidence of belief in non-resistance is found throughout the Christian writers
of this period, and one following the teaching of these certainly could not be in the army at the
same time. Concerning the Christian's separation from the army, Cadoux. one of the best early
authorities on the subject says, "No Christian ever thought of enlisting in the army after his
conversion until the reign of Marcus Aurelius from 161 to 180 A.D." (Cadoux, The Early
Christian Attitude to War; London, 1919, pg. 17). Although some might argue that Cornelius and
the Philippian jailer represent examples to the contrary, it seems correct to say that these
probably left soldiering, or if they continued, certainly would have done so, anabaptists believe,
in direct contrast to the teaching and example of Christ, the Apostles, and the early church.
Hershberger also in discussing early church history writes:
“The literature of the period between the writing of the New Testament and
the year A.D. 174 also has little to say on the specific point of military service
for Christians, evidently because the question seldom came up. The writings
of [[@Page:20]]this period are strongly non-resistant in their general tenor,
however, so that it is quite unlikely that anyone remained both a soldier and a
Christian for any length of time during this period" (Hershberger, 65).
The same conclusion is reached by the well known church historian Roland Bainton who
writes:
"From the end of the New Testament period to the decade A.D. 170-80 there
is no evidence whatever of Christians in the army. The subject of military
service obviously was not at that time controversial. The reason may have
been either that participation was assumed or that abstention was taken for
granted. The latter is more probable. The expansion of Christianity had taken
place chiefly among civilians in the urban centers. Few as yet were converted
while in the army. Converts not already in the ranks had many reasons against
volunteering, and they were not subject to conscription. As slaves or freed
men many were ineligible. The danger of idolatry in the army was greater than
in civilian life. Add to these considerations the rigorism of the church which
throughout the second century would not readmit to communion penitents
guilty of apostasy, adultery, or bloodshed, and the likelihood appears greater
that the church withheld its members from military service than that they were
permitted to serve without a single reproach or penalty" (Bainton, 67-68).
The conclusion of these authorities is confirmed by a number of early witnesses who
speak concerning non-resistance during this time. From the pagan side first of all Celsus says in
speaking of the Christians:
If all men were to do the same as you. there would be nothing to prevent the
king from being left in utter solitude and desertion and the forces of the
empire would fall into the hands of the wildest and most lawless barbarians"
(Bainton, 68-69).
This testimony certainly assumes the rejection of military service by Christians.
From the side of the Christians there are also a number of testimonies up to 180 A.D.
which show a clear non-resistant belief and a literal following of the Lord and the Apostles. For
example, Athenagoras said concerning Christians that they, "do not strike back, do not
[[@Page:21]]go to law when robbed; they give to them that ask of them and love their neighbors
as themselves" ([[Legatio Pro Christianis, XI >> Athenagoras:Athengoras, Legatio sive
Supplicatio pro Christianis 11]]).
Justin Martyr likewise affirms: "We who were filled with war and mutual slaughter and
every wickedness have each of us in all the world changed our weapons of war... swords into
plows and spears into agricultural implements" ([[Trypho, CX >> JustinMartyr:Dial. 110]]). And
again: "We who formerly murdered one another now not only do not make war upon our
enemies, but that we may not lie or deceive our judges, we gladly die confessing Christ" ([[I
Apol. XXXIX >> JustinMartyr:1 Apol. 39]]).
Furthermore, the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles (110 A.D.) reads: "Thou shalt not take
evil counsel against thy neighbor. Thou shalt not hate any man" ([[Didache 2:6-7 >>
ApostolicFathers:Did 2.6-7]]).
When Polycarp writes to the Philippians he challenges his readers to imitate Christ by
"not rendering evil for evil, or railing for railing, or blow for blow, or cursing for cursing"
([[Polycarp to Philippians II >> ApostolicFathers:Poly 2]]).
Likewise, Ignatius (110 A.D.) challenges the Ephesians to no small imitation of Christ
when he says:
"Do not seek to avenge yourselves on those who injure you... And let us
imitate the Lord, "who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he was
crucified, he answered not; when he suffered, he threatened not; but prayed
for his enemies" ([[Ignatius to the Ephesians, 10 >> ApostolicFathers:IEph
10]]).
And again, Athenagoras literally follows our Lord's instruction when he writes:
"We have learned not to return blow for blow, not to go to law with those who
plunder and rob us, but to those who smite us on one side of the face to offer
the other side also, and to those who take away our coat to give likewise our
cloak" ([[Plea for the Christians, I >> Athenagoras:Athengoras, Legatio sive
Supplicatio pro Christianis 1]]).
A little later Tertullian says:
"Shall it be held lawful to make an occupation of the sword, when the Lord
proclaims that he who uses the sword shall perish by the sword? And shall the
[[@Page:22]]son of peace take part in the battle when it does not become him
even to sue the law? And shall he apply the chain, and the prison, and the
torture and the punishment, who is not the avenger even of his own wrongs?"
(Tertullian, [[De Corona, 11 >> Tertullian:De cor. 11]])
Origen also confirms the witness of Tertullian in a number of places. He said concerning
believers:
"We have come in accordance with the counsel of Jesus to cut down our
warlike and arrogant swords of argument into plowshares, and we convert into
sickles the spears we formerly used in fighting. For we no longer 'take sword
against nation,' nor do we learn 'any more to make war,' having become sons
of peace for the sake of Jesus who is our leader" ([[Origen. vs. Celsus, 5:33
>> Origen:Cont. Cels. 5.33]]).
He specifically stated elsewhere that Christians cannot serve as soldiers ([[Origen vs.
Celsus, 8:73-75 >> Origen:Cont. Cels. 8.73]]) and refuted the pagan Celsus' charge against
Christians by arguing that Christians better served the government in their peaceful means than
soldiers or other rulers.
He writes:
"For men of God are assuredly the salt of the earth; they preserve the order of
the world; and society is held together as long as the salt is uncorrupted. And
as we by our prayers vanquish all demons who stir up war, and lead to the
violation of oaths, and disturb the peace, we in this way are much more
helpful to the beings, than those who go into the fields to fight for them... we
do not indeed fight under him, although he require it: but we fight on his
behalf, forming a special army—an army of piety—by offering our prayers to
God... Christians are benefactors of their country more than others. For they
train up citizens, and inculcate piety to the Supreme Being; and they promote
those whose lives in the smallest cities have been good and worthy, to a divine
and heavenly city... And it is not for the purpose of escaping public duties that
Christians decline public offices, but that they may reserve themselves for a
divine and more necessary service to the church of God—for the salvation of
men" ([[Origen vs. Celsus, 8:70-75 >> Origen:Cont. Cels. 8.70]]).
Cyprian, who died in 258 A.D. says that Christians "are not allowed to kill, but they must
be ready to put to death themselves." And again, "it is not permitted the guiltless to put even the
guilty to death" ([[Epistles of Cyprian, 1:6 >> Cyprian:Ep. 1.6]]). He continues, "the whole earth
is [[@Page:23]]drenched in adversaries’ blood, and if a murder is committed privately it is a
crime, but if it happens with state authority, courage is the name for it."
When more and more Christians left the New Testament teaching of non-resistance to
join the army, other Christians spoke out against this as wrong. Church councils made statements
forbidding church membership to one who would fall away from the New Testament in this way.
One such order given by Cadoux reads:
"He who is a soldier among the believers, and among the instructed... and a
magistrate with the sword or chief of prefects... let him leave off or be
rejected. And a catechumen or believer if they wish to be a soldier, shall be
rejected, because it is far from God" (Cadoux, 122-23).
Another stated:
"Let a catechumen or a believer of the people, if he desires to be a soldier,
either cease from his intention, or if not let him be rejected. For he hath
despised God by his thought, and leaving the things of the Spirit, he hath
perfected himself in the flesh, and hath treated the faith with contempt"
(Cadoux, 122-23).
Cases of men who became believers and were in the army give testimonies of following
our Lord in non-resistance. One man, Eusebius says, "by his voluntary confession and after
nobly enduring bitter scourging succeeded in getting discharge from military service" (Heering,
52). Maximilian was another who sealed his testimony with death in 295 A.D. He refused
induction into the army saying: I cannot serve as a soldier; I cannot do evil; I am a Christian"
(Cadoux. 149). He was told that to refuse would mean his death. He then answered, “I shall not
perish, but when I shall have forsaken this world my soul shall live with Christ my Lord"
(Cadoux, page 149). Being then put to death at age 21 his father "returned home giving thanks to
God that he had been able to bring such a present to the Lord" (Cadoux, page 149). Such
testimonies according to the historian Cadoux were [[@Page:24]]numerous in the early church
especially after the church was faced with this as a real problem following the changes made
during the reign of Constantine (Cadoux, 150-51).
In view of all of this positive testimony in the post-apostolic church, what happened to
bring about the change or fall of the church from Biblical non-resistance? Historians admit a
departure in this area around 180 A.D. on the part of a few even though many voices were raised
in opposition (as just seen). This wedge was then broadened until it completely entered the
church with the merging of the church and state under Constantine. The sign of the cross at that
time (313 A.D.) became a military symbol and the church in this compromise lost its Biblical
non-resistance. From this came Augustine's just war theory (Christians fight for the emperor in
just wars only) and the church now according to the anabaptists began to wrongly misuse the
scriptures to support this position.
It is from this background and point that I believe the mainstream majority of the 21st
century church in America generally takes her position today. From Constantine, the reformers
following the church made no complete separation in the area of non-resistance back to the New
Testament and early post-apostolic fathers, but continued the course of Constantine and
Augustine of encouraging Christian participation in warfare. The church today, stemming from
the reformers, has simply perpetuated this position. Only the anabaptist reformers went back to
the New Testament teaching of non-resistance, and only a small segment of today's western
church follows from this background. This then explains the average 21st century evangelical; he
is simply the recipient of a traditional heritage that he reads back into his New Testament
hermeneutics in sincerity, believing this to be the proper understanding of the New Testament.
This is the reason anabaptists feel so many Christians believe as they do about the subject of
non-resistance today.
[[@Page:25]]In conclusion then, anabaptists believe that not only is non-resistance taught
throughout the New Testament, but it was believed and taught throughout the early postapostolic church as well.
The Objections and Replies to Non-Resistance from the Anabaptist
Perspective
Having looked at the New Testament teaching and post-apostolic teaching on the subject
of non-resistance, it is now necessary to look at the basic objections and the anabaptist replies.
These objections come in two areas: scriptural and practical.
Scriptural Objections
The first area in which objections need to be dealt with center in the area of scriptural
objections that Christians often raise to the position of non-resistance. In handling these, it is best
to follow the format of stating the objection, then stating the anabaptist reply.
1. War in the Old Testament
The first area often mentioned by believers is the Old Testament scriptures in this area.
War is taught and even commanded in the Old Testament it is said. If God is the same God,
participation in war would be just as valid for God's people today.
Reply:
While some have argued that God never really intended war in the Old Testament, but
only permitted it, this can nowhere be supported since God even commanded it in the Old
Testament. The best explanation is seen in viewing a distinction of purpose between the nation of
Israel and the New Testament church, and the explanation from progressive revelation.
[[@Page:26]]In the Old Testament we find one nation. It has an earthly king, and an
earthly duty. This nation is God's people having been given a dualistic purpose of being a light to
other nations, as well as carrying out God's judgment against idolatry and the worship of other
gods. These wars are therefore religious wars in obedience to Yahweh in carrying out this
objective.
Based upon a clear-cut distinction between God's purpose for Israel in the Old Testament
economy, and God's present purpose for the church as introduced by the new revelation of Christ
in extending love to all men (including enemies; Matthew 5), the Christian today is not justified
in using the Old Testament instructions to the nation of Israel as grounds for supporting Christian
participation in warfare. If followed out in the same sense (religious warfare against idolatry), the
Christians in America would of necessity have to destroy a large percentage of professed
Christendom in America, for that is exactly what is found in the Old Testament. Idolatry and its
worshippers were to be destroyed. The wars of Israel were holy wars, and such do not exist
today.
To reject this, and simply argue for the principle of war and participation in it from the
Old Testament again cannot be done since all of Israel's wars in the Old Testament were
religious, and furthermore, such argumentation cannot be followed through in the New
Testament when the N.T. teaches that which is directly contrary to any participation of a
Christian in human destruction. There is therefore no New Testament passage that encourages a
Christian's participation in war and destruction of others, either in a religious or civil sense. All is
to the contrary, and it is the anabaptist belief that the later progressive revelation of the N.T. must
become the sole basis of the believer's practice today.
[[@Page:27]]2. Romans Chapter Thirteen
The second area of objection that one hears equally with the Old Testament argument
above is that of Romans 13. This is the basic proof text of all Christians who seek to argue for a
believer's participation in warfare. The argument usually goes something like this: In this
passage we are exhorted to be in subjection to government. Government is a minister of God and
does not bear the sword in vain. Therefore, believers under God and his command to be in
subjection to government must help government bear the sword.
Reply:
To interpret Romans 13 in this manner, as already discussed in the paper, is to
misinterpret the total flow of Romans 12:17 to [[13:10 >> Bible:Rom 13:10]]. It rather considers
Romans 13:1-7 as a unit distinct from its overall contextual setting of [[12:17-21 >> Bible:Rom
12:17-21]] and [[13:8-10 >> Bible:Rom 13:8-10]]. As already discussed in the paper (where the
passage was briefly expounded), Paul is teaching the believers concerning the need for a Biblical
non-resistance both on a universal absolute as well as a personal basis ([[12:17-21 >> Bible:Rom
12:17-21]]). Such a non-resistance never overcomes evil with evil, but always overcomes evil
with good (Romans 12:21).
But, the believers might well have asked, "What about a Roman government? How does
non-resistance relate here?" The attitude is to be one of continued non-resistance demonstrated
by being in subjection to leaders. Paul tells the believers to realize that they (the magistrates)
have been ordained by God as His representatives (at this time Christians were not in the Roman
army, nor were they magistrates) to hold down evil in a world system. Therefore, do not rebel
against it for two reasons. First, Nero's sword is a threat to all who would do evil and because of
a fear of such, do not do evil against him in seeking to revolt or cause a rebellion by not being in
subjection (note the play on the [[@Page:28]]words evil and good in [[12:21 >> Bible:Rom
12:21]] and [[13:3-4 >> Bible:Rom 13:3-4]] tying the passage together), for his sword is used
against evil doers. Secondly, not only on account of avoiding the wrath of Nero's sword ([[13:5
>> Bible:Rom 13:5]]) is it necessary to be in subjection, but also for conscience’ sake since he is
doing a ministry for God in holding down evil in this world. To rebel against Nero thus is to
rebel against God, and therefore, for conscience’ sake, as well as wrath's, be in subjection.
At no point is Paul here encouraging these believers to bear Nero's sword with him. That
is nowhere stated in this chapter and is in conflict with the mandate in [[chapter 12 >>
Bible:Rom 12]] and the total flow of thought. Instead, Paul simply tells these believers to fear
and honor the authorities, and to pay their proper taxes. These things teach nothing of
involvement in Nero's army or police force.
Paul then concludes the whole section started in Romans 12:17-21 and [[13:8 >>
Bible:Rom 13:8]] and following when he says, "to no one owe anything except to love one
another." Such love will love one's neighbor as himself ([[13:9 >> Bible:Rom 13:9]]), and works
no injury or evil to his neighbor ([[13:10 >> Bible:Rom 13:10]]), which brings Paul back to what
he started in [[12:17 >> Bible:Rom 12:17]] when he writes: 'To no one render evil for evil."
Thus, in the section, Paul is not encouraging believers to help Nero in the bearing of his sword,
nor is he even implying it. But in the whole context and flow of thought from [[12:17-13:10 >>
Bible:Rom 12:17-13:10]], Paul is teaching non-resistance and the overcoming of evil with good
in relation to all including a Roman Nero by being in proper subjection to him. The Christian is
to owe literally no man (including a persecuting Nero) anything but love, which excludes any act
of injury to anyone whoever and wherever he may be.
This passage teaches that a believer is to be in subjection to any and all government
(democratic or totalitarian) in so far of course as the government does not ask him to do
something contrary to his higher constitution—the Word of God. Whenever there is a
[[@Page:29]]conflict here the Christian must obey God rather than men. Peter and the early
church clearly set forth this example when they were asked by the governmental leaders of their
day to stop preaching about Jesus. Their reply is classic and must be the reply of all believers
who are asked by governmental authority to violate God's higher mandate. John and Peter
replied: "If it is right before God to obey you rather than God, you judge, for we are not able to
speak except what we see and hear" (Acts 4:19-20). And again a second time when the same
issue arose Peter and the Apostles said: "It is necessary to obey God rather than men" (Acts
5:29).
It is of chief importance to note that we as believers are under a higher and lower
authority, and whenever the two are in conflict, believers must always respond to our higher
authority—the Lord Himself as He has spoken in His Word. If the government of a believer
should ask him to take human life, a believer who holds to Biblical non-resistance would have to
obey God rather than men. A believer can be thankful that the American government does allow
for conviction of conscience and the position of conscientious objection from those who believe
such, based upon religious grounds.
In Romans 13 it has been seen therefore that instead of encouraging the Christian to bear
Nero's sword, Paul is rather encouraging him to non-resistance to all including subjection to a
Neronian government, instead of creating revolt or rebellion against it. It is in error to read
Christian participation in warfare into this passage.
An interesting consideration might be illustrated from a practical consideration. One who
holds that Romans 13 teaches a believer's subjection to government to the point of helping to
bear his government's sword, teaches that this applies to all Christians under their different
governmental authorities. For example, in the civil war, families (some [[@Page:30]]under the
north, others under the south) must have fought against each other and killed one another based
upon obedience to the respective governmental authorities. And all of this is so instituted by God
it is argued.
An illustration from World War II can demonstrate this tragic incongruity:
"At the close of the Second World War two veterans met in the home of an
American professor; one was a German, the other an American. Both were
theology students. The German had been on a submarine, the American in an
airplane. They compared notes. The German related that on a given day in a
given month in a particular year he had been in a submarine off a Baltic port,
dodging the bombs from an American plane. The American said that on the
same day of the same month and the same year off that same Baltic port he
had been in a plane dropping bombs in an effort to bag a German submarine.
For the first time each of them felt the monstrous incongruity on the part of
two men training to be ministers of Jesus Christ" (Bainton, Christian Attitudes
Toward War and Peace, 264).
Such is the result of an interpretation of Romans 13 that argues for Christians to bear the
sword with Nero. Imagine it being the Lord's will for these two men (the German and American)
who were studying for the ministry, who are now fellow servants and comrades of the Gospel, to
have been seeking to maim or kill each other shortly prior to this. Or, following the basic
evangelical interpretation of Romans 13, imagine these men receiving their training for the
ministry together growing to be close friends in the work of their Lord. They return to their own
countries. War is declared. And in obedience to such an understanding of Romans 13, they
follow their own respective governments to participate in the possible maiming or killing of each
other. And this is all supposed to be of God? Such a conclusion based upon the normal
evangelical interpretation of Romans 13, argues the anabaptist, misses Paul's whole point in
Romans 13:8 when he says: "Owe no man anything except to love (him)."
[[@Page:31]]3. Problem of Christ in the Temple (John 2, Matthew 21)
From the two incidents of Christ cleansing the temple it is argued that Jesus at this point
did not act non-resistantly, and hence such action nullifies any total non-resistant ethic from
Matthew 5.
Reply:
These incidents in no way nullify the instruction of Jesus concerning non-resistance. The
religious leaders of Christ's day had made His Father's house (the Temple) a den of thieves. The
leaders of Christ's day were getting rich off of poor, innocent, unsuspecting people by rejecting
their animals for sacrifice as not being blameless, and in turn selling sheep to such for a high
profit. These leaders were making God's law a blasphemy, and all of it being done on religious
grounds.
Jesus then, in His righteous indignation, makes a scourge from small ropes and drives the
sellers of the sheep and goats out of the temple. One can argue that Christ used the whip on the
men, but one could just as easily argue that He did not, but rather used the scourge on the
animals and as a symbol of authority towards the men. While actually driving the animals out by
the scourge, the sellers then followed their fleeing animals. The most natural assumption is that
He used it on the animals. This seems supported in that [[2:15 >> Bible:John 2:15]] says that
after making the scourge. He cast all out (the word all certainly includes the sellers of doves in
[[verse 14 >> Bible:John 2:14]]) and yet in [[2:16 >> Bible:John 2:16]] He speaks to those
selling the doves and commands them to leave. This seems to definitely point to a lack of assault
and battery on the men, but rather physical blows administered to the animals only and words of
command and rebuke towards the sellers. Such an action would be an act of proper righteous
indignation against religious apostasy and perversion which is at the [[@Page:32]]same time
consistent with non-violence in avoiding the affliction of injury upon human beings.
Furthermore, even if one insists on arguing that Christ used the scourge on the men, the
passage does view this whole action as a Messianic act (as seen in the application of the
Messianic Psalm 69 to this work of Christ, [[v. 17 >> Bible:Ps 69]]). As the divine Messiah,
Christ will someday exercise judgment on sinful and unbelieving men (John 5; Revelation 19),
but this is clearly a work of God which was never given to us. In contrast, we are to leave the
evildoer in God's hand to administer wrath (Romans 12). As Messiah, He did many works:
walking on water, forgiving sins, etc.—but we cannot take these as our example and follow Him
in these. In other words, we follow the human side of Jesus as far as our example for life is
concerned, and aside from this Messianic action of the temple incident, there is no other example
recorded in the life of Christ as our human example where it can even be suggested that He did
not live absolutely in a non-resistant manner as He had taught in Matthew 5.
4. The Two Swords of Luke 22:35-38
In this passage it is argued that the Lord told the disciples to arm themselves in view of
the coming violent events surrounding His death. These are said to be defensive swords by which
Christ is encouraging self defense.
Reply:
The passage is not teaching self defense and the use of violence, since Christ had taught
to the contrary (Matthew 5-7), since He rebuked Peter for using a sword shortly after this
(Matthew 26), and since the Apostles lived and taught to the contrary. Christ is rather saying that
if you have gone out without sword before, buy one now, because more [[@Page:33]]intense
antagonism is coming. In other words, He is speaking metaphorically as He had done in Matthew
10:34-30; telling them to, in essence, prepare for opposition and hard times about to befall them.
They (His disciples) misunderstood Him, taking Him literally (this has happened before; e.g.,
Mark 8:14-21), and He quickly dismisses it by the reply, "it is sufficient" (Luke 22:38). Certainly
two swords are not sufficient to be used in self defense against the approaching Roman legion, or
in self-defense for the Twelve for that matter. Jesus is rather passing their misinterpretation off in
order to begin the move to the Mount of Olives and the subsequent events to follow.
5. The Soldiers in the Gospels and Acts 10:16
There were soldiers in both the Gospels and Acts and not a word was recorded telling
them to get out of the army. We can therefore assume, it is argued, that Christians were in the
army, and that the teaching of non-resistance did not apply to this area of life.
Reply:
In both the Gospels and the book of Acts the writers are following their particular themes
and do not record everything which was spoken or taught. In the Gospels the writers are each
setting forth their themes concerning Christ as the Lord and Messiah; in the book of Acts, Luke
is showing the geographical development of the early church in its spread from Jerusalem to the
uttermost regions of the world. It is not in the writers' purposes therefore, in the Gospels or Acts,
to show the development of non-resistance in the early church or relay absolutely everything that
was possibly taught. The writers of the New Testament are simply showing how these came to
Christ in their particular themes, not what they did or did not do subsequently.
[[@Page:34]]The argument then, due to the thematic approach of each of the writers,
becomes an argument from silence. To say that these soldiers remained in the army is strictly
therefore arguing from silence with all the evidence against it. If these particular individuals in
the Gospels and Acts ([[10:16 >> Bible:Acts 10:16]]) remained in the army, they would have
done so against the clear teaching and example of Christ and the Apostles (as already seen in the
study), as well as the clear teaching and example of the early church. Such could conceivably
have happened, but the evidence is that these probably left their profession after their
conversions and later teaching; even if they did not, they would have remained in a completely
contrary status, in relation to the teaching and example of Christ, the Apostles and the early
church.
6. The Teaching of John the Baptist that the Soldiers Be Content with their Wages (Luke 3:14)
It is argued that the New Testament only teaches that soldiers not defraud anyone and
that they be content with their wages.
Reply:
These words in Luke 3:14 spoken by John to the Roman soldiers of His day were spoken
prior to the teaching of non-resistance by our Lord and subsequently by the Apostles who
followed His teaching. Hence, progressive revelation is the answer here, I believe. John was still
living under the revelation of the Old Testament economy of law which would not have given
teaching to lead John to teach any differently than He did, but when Jesus came (after John), He
introduced (as already seen) an absolute non-resistance which taught against any destruction of
human life or doing injury or evil to others. This problem then is answered by an understanding
of progressive revelation and [[@Page:35]]makes a distinction between the believer after the
leaching of Christ in the church and the Old Testament believer.
7. The Allusion to Military Symbolism in the New Testament
It is sometimes argued that the Apostles alluded to military symbolism in the New
Testament, thus showing no aversion to such profession.
Reply:
The use of symbolism does not entail the support or the literalizing of that symbol or
what it represents in terms of the literal participation in the use of the symbol. It is simply a wise
use of illustration to best illustrate a spiritual reality. What better way to speak of a Christian than
as a soldier who is in a war against the powers of evil who must be armed with proper spiritual
defenses (Ephesians 6). The use of the symbol best portrays the spiritual reality behind the
symbol, but in no way implies the support in terms of its literal use. Christ's coming as a thief
does not encourage Christians to become professional thieves.
8. Christ's Rebuke of the Pharisees in Matthew 23
It is said that Christ strongly rebuked the Pharisees in Matthew 23 thereby not following
a non-resistant approach.
Reply:
In this passage there is no act of physical injury done to these, but simply an
announcement to them of what they really are like. The light is turned on so that the unclean
places can be seen. Jesus is doing no more than a good doctor would do who in seeing by x-ray
that a person has cancer which is killing him, instead of hiding or ignoring the fact, reveals it to a
patient he cares for. So the Lord, in love, even though the [[@Page:36]]rebuke seems strong, is
strongly showing these leaders where they really stand in relation to God. This was for the
benefit of any who would turn from their hypocrisies to Him. It is in love, in the same sense that
a minister today will point out error and sin by using God's Word. This in no way contradicts
non-resistance, but is actually loving another by showing him where he is sick and needs healing.
9. The Picture of Jesus in Revelation 19
Jesus Himself, it is argued, will someday smite armies. One can be like him and therefore
render just judgment on others.
Reply:
The picture in Revelation 19 is the apocalyptic vision by John of Christ as God judging
unbelievers and sinners (the Beast and his armies) before He begins His eternal reign. As God,
He has this authority to judge (John 5; Romans 12). We, however, do not have this authority but
are to follow His earthly teaching and example which He has left for us to follow (Matthew 5:7;
1 Peter 2; Romans 12; etc.). As a matter of fact, this is exactly what the Apostle Paul says when
he encourages believers not to return evil for evil but to give the place of judgment to God
(Romans 12:17-21).
10. The Paying of Taxes
It is further argued that if a Christian believing in non-resistance pays taxes, he is of
necessity involved in the destruction of human life in military activity since some of his taxes are
used toward military equipment and support.
Reply:
Christ very cogently and precisely answered this when in discussing allegiance to
Himself and Caesar. He said, "Render therefore the things of Caesar to Caesar and the
[[@Page:37]]things of God to God" (Matthew 22:21). In the context of Matthew the particular
thing that was to be rendered to Caesar was the tax (Matthew 22:15-20), and this agrees with
Paul's exhortation to believers in Romans 13 (that of rendering taxes to Caesar). Thus, Jesus says
that one is to give the things which belong to Caesar to Caesar. Therefore, required taxes belong
to Caesar, not the individual Christian, and what Caesar or government does with what is already
its own becomes the responsibility of government for its use and not that of the individual. To
give over and above what already belongs lo government, however (such as buying war bonds in
World War II, etc.), would be inconsistent with non-resistance, but to simply pay to Caesar
(government) what already belongs to it (taxes) does not cause the Christian to become
responsible for the use of something that does not belong to him in the first place.
It is interesting to note in this passage in Matthew that Jesus says not only are His
followers to give to Caesar what is Caesar's, but the things of God to God. A believer is not to
give to Caesar that which belongs to God, and the individual Christian and the use of his body
belongs to God. Paul, in combating fornication speaks concerning God's ownership of our bodies
when he says, "Do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you,
whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price.
Therefore honor God with your body" (I Corinthians 6:19-20). Just as God has not ordained His
temple (our body) for sexual immorality, so He has not ordained it for participation in human
destruction but to the overcoming of evil with good, displayed to all men everywhere (e.g.,
Matthew 5; Romans 12:17-21; 13ff; 1 Thessalonians 5:15).
[[@Page:38]]A Christian therefore in all consistency can pay his taxes and is commanded
to do so in the New Testament; for these do not belong to him, but to Caesar already, and what
Caesar does with what is his becomes his own responsibility. But for a Christian to render to
Caesar his own body for a use contrary to that ordained for one in whom God dwells (e.g.,
participation in warfare), the anabaptist feels he surrenders to Caesar what is actually God's, and
thereby does not fulfill God's will for the believer's life (e.g., that of bringing salvation to all
people and always rendering good to all people instead of injury). A non-resistant Christian is a
good citizen by seeking to follow the teaching and example of Christ in being salt and light in
this world in seeking to bring peace to it.
Practical Objection
With the Biblical objections (which usually are not cited in discussion except by one
having a Biblical orientation), the basic objection to Biblical non-resistance is a practical one.
This is usually the first objection encountered and it is as follows: What would you do if
someone were attacking you, a loved one, or another person, and you must perhaps take the life
of the attacker or resist him in order to save the innocent person? To refrain from helping such a
one would be an evil in itself.
Reply:
It should be first of all emphasized that practical problems must be faced on both sides. It
is not one-sided as often the case is presented. The person who does not believe in non-resistance
must face the very real, practical problem of killing or participating in such action against
innocent people in time of war. Women, children, and all types of innocent people are inevitably
maimed, hurt, and killed in warfare. These are called collateral [[@Page:39]]damage. Would
Jesus drop bombs on people? Christians inevitably fight against and maim, hurt, or kill fellow
believers who are supposed to show the world they are Christ's by their love for each other (John
13:35). And believers kill fellow human beings, many of whom are on the opposite side due to
no choice of their own, other than the fact that in God's sovereign control they were born in
another country. Many fight for an ideology out of deception or forced necessity, and Christians
whom God has chosen out of the world to be emissaries of love and salvation become emissaries
of destruction and death. While the spread of the Gospel is being encouraged in an effort to bring
men into eternal life, guns and bombs are being used to kill human beings. Such is the very real
problem a Christian not believing in non-resistance must face. War is not a demonstration of
charity.
Lord John Fisher speaks of the true nature of war when he says:
"The humanizing of war! ... As if war could be civilized! If I'm in command
when war breaks out I shall issue my order: 'The essence of war is violence,
moderation in war is imbecility, hit first, hit hard, and hit everywhere.'"
(Reginald Hugh Bacon, Lord Fisher; London, 1929; I, 120-21)
The Christian not believing in non-resistance then faces a real practical problem. No
matter how much one speaks of love, in warfare he is called upon to kill others, while at the
same time, he is also called to be the light of the world and the salt of the earth and to follow the
example of His Lord who taught His own to love their enemies and all men as themselves.
In view of having said this, it is well now to answer the objection to non-resistance. One
simply admits the practical problem on both sides, and the non-resistant person would better live
with his set of problems than the problems of the other position. In such cases the person
believing in non-resistance should seek to be consistent in his application of the Word
[[@Page:40]]of God, trusting God for help in the matter. Such a solution will not seem practical
to many, but if a Christian professes to trust God in the eternal realm, can he not likewise trust
Him in the temporal realm?
Many say, "But what about the person being raped or attacked? Will you just stand there
and do nothing at her expense? Wouldn't that be doing evil to that person by being non-resistant?
Grant it, you may be non-resistant when just you as an individual are involved, but can you just
watch the injury of another and do him good?"
In answer to this objection, if such a situation presented itself, the Anabaptist believes a
person following consistently and honestly the Biblical mandate of non-resistance would seek to
do good in that situation to all involved. If one could somehow restrain or hold the attacker back
until the innocent person could flee, such an act could possibly be doing good to both the
attacker and the attacked. In relation to the attacker, it might prevent him from following through
with a crime which he could be severely punished for, as well as the injury done to his
conscience. In relation to the one being attacked, it would stop evil being done to them.
However, that would be as far as Anabaptists believe one could go in consistency with nonresistance. He certainly could not kill another, and fulfill the New Testament teaching of nonresistance.
They realize that this may not be a satisfactory solution to many, and other situations
could be raised which are very real problems to a Christian believing in non-resistance. But, in
everything a Christian must, they believe, be absolutely true and faithful to the New Testament
ethic of love and non-resistance, and be willing to live with these practical problems, realizing
that the problems of the Christian not believing in biblical non-resistance are even greater when
one considers the teaching of our Lord and the Apostles.
[[@Page:41]]The Application of Non-Resistance to Life according to the
Anabaptist Position
Out of conscience, the anabaptist position believes that one following non-resistance
could not be involved in anything that involved taking the life of another human being.
Anabaptist belief holds by strong heart and conscience conviction, the position of conscientious
objector and alternative service to be the position consistent with the Biblical teaching of nonresistance. Those believing in the anabaptist perspective are thankful for a country and
government that has honored such special conviction on the part of sincere Christians, and such
believers can only pray that this freedom of conscience will continue in our country without
penalty or suffering.
The anabaptist position believes not only in the application of non-resistance seen in civil
areas or any other public area or function where one would have to hurt, or be a part in the
destruction of human life, but the application comes down to the very personal level as well. One
may be non-resistant as far as not physically harming another, but may still be violent in attitude.
Do I retaliate against a colleague who verbally attacks me, or am I non-resistant? How do I
respond in my work place? Am I non-resistant in my family relationships and pursuing peace,
love, and gentleness, hereby overcoming possible evil with good? Am I non-resistant, and one
who shows Christian love to those of other races or religions?
Thus, the application of non-resistance from an anabaptist belief has many avenues—
country, civil, personal, etc.—and in all of them, consistency of life and literal application of the
teaching of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ is what He asks and desires for his followers.
Christians according to the anabaptist teaching must always be asking what Christ
[[@Page:42]]would do in any situation and always measuring whether or not they are loving
their neighbors as themselves.
[[@Page:43]]Bibliography
Bacon, Reginald Hugh. The Dover Patrol 1915-1917. General Books LLC, 2010.
Bainton, Roland. Christian Attitude Toward War and Peace: A Historical Survey and Critical
Re-Evaluation. Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2008.
Cadoux. C. John. The Early Christian Attitude Toward War. Gordon Pr Pub, 1978.
Dunn, Geoffery. Tertullian (The Early Fathers) Routledge, 2004.
Eusebius. ed. by Andrew Louth. The History of the Church from Christ to Constantine. Penguin
Classics, 1990.
Hershberger, Guy F. War, Peace and Non-Resistance. Herald Press, 5th edition, 2009.
Louth, Andrew. Early Christian Writings: The Apostolic Fathers. Penguin Classics, 1987.